this post was submitted on 01 May 2026
196 points (98.5% liked)
Climate
8624 readers
307 users here now
Discussion of climate, how it is changing, activism around that, the politics, and the energy systems change we need in order to stabilize things.
As a starting point, the burning of fossil fuels, and to a lesser extent deforestation and release of methane are responsible for the warming in recent decades:
How much each change to the atmosphere has warmed the world:
Recommended actions to cut greenhouse gas emissions in the near future:
Anti-science, inactivism, and unsupported conspiracy theories are not ok here.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
This comment is tone deaf.
We've invested a bunch in those sectores in the last decade and a half. Not in nuclear. Before then, they were also ridiculously expensive and everyone made the same argument you are making, but in favor of Fossil fuels because it was cheaper. It was shit then, it's shit now.
If you actually look at data instead of going off vibes nuclear is still the second safest energy source, nearly tied with solar. Wind is behind, and if you think nuclear is dangerous then what the fuck are you bringing up hydro for? By the most dangerous if those, if we go by actual data and not vibes.
And plenty of working solutions for waste have been found, but people just don't care to listen to them because they already made up their mind: airplanes are more dangerous than cars.
Riddle me this: where are the ultimate disposal places for nuclear waste and how much does it cost to operate them for the next tens of thousands of years - at least. Please do enlighten me about the (technically and economically) working solutions for nuclear waste. But I do agree that fossil is shit now and it was then.
And there's zero risk of radioactive contamination when using solar (or hydro or wind), statistics my ass.
Have you ever heard of the disaster at Chernobyl? And it was close more often: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_nuclear_power_accidents_by_country
Calling the certainty of nuclear waste and the risk of contamination vibes is as ridiculous as it can get.
Btw. there's a difference between risks that affect people once and risks that affect people for centuries.
Even before we get to nuclear disposal places, there are reactors which can literally use the waste from other reactors, producing more energy and reducing the waste. And once it cannot be reused anymore, it can be safely stored underground, which you cannot do with the waste from fossil fuels. Do you have working solutions for carbon emissions? Because renewables still cannot keep up with the demand, and everyone will tell you need something other than them to jump start grids, base load, and for emergencies.
And yes, it's vibes. Factually, nuclear is safer than all renewables, except solar. This is a blatant mathematical and statistical fact. I can also link to plane crashes. Are you going to cry to me about how they are more dangerous than cars? And Chernobyl happened very early in nuclear energy production technology, we have improved a lot since, and even the most recent accidents were on plants that have existed for a while.
Where do you think the materials to build renewables come from? Mines. Did you know mines are radioactive, and release radioactive which is not contained? So newsflash: not just coal, but even iron mines release radioactivity due to trace amounts of radioactive material. This radioactivity is not contained. And given how there are people in there, and they are often close to civilization, they are even worse for people than nuclear waste disposal sites which are deep underground and where almost no one goes.
You are ignorant. Period, end of. I'm tired of hearing ignorant and anti-science people spreading missinfo while pretending to care about science and facts. Climate scientists have literally been advocating for nuclear as a green alternative.
In theory or in practice? If in practice, please name/link them.
Until you showed me the reactors that use nuclear waste from other reactors, I call it the bullshit that carbon capture is - greenwashing to continue with the harmful processes.
We need to avoid carbon emissions and nuclear waste. Period.
Do you know how you sound?
Link to the science or stfu.
I won't do your homework for you mate. If you really want you can look through my profile where I've posted links in the past. It never matters because you always either go silent or just deflect and bury your head in the sand.
Sure, go on claiming stuff while shifting the burden of "homework" on others instead of proving your claims as that sounds like a perfectly scientific approach, lol..
You may be able to fool others with your argument from authority ("science says..."), but please allow me once more to ask you for specific links to your claims.
If you can't/won't provide them I fear it's more like you are the one going silent or burying your head in the sand.
So what's it gonna be?
Stop performimg for an audience, there's no one else here mate. At this point, if you really cared you could have easily found the evidence for what I'm saying. Even in my profile, like I said.
You're a damn fool and I'm not wasting more time. Keep screaming to the void and performing for your audience, I'm ignoring you.
Well, I'm not screaming, but you're pretty much a void.
If you cared, you could've provided one name or link.
Yeah, I'm gonna ignore you too, because you have nothing to offer but ramblings.